A lot of books/authors have moral/ethical themes that have influences western society and thus western writing: -The Republic -Books by John Locke -Karl Marx -John Stuart Mill -Adam Smith -Immanuel Kant -Niccolò Machiavelli -George Orwell
Since cultures are melding modern western writing is also influenced by all the various religions and writing from other cultures. Buddhism is a good example and one not based on the bible in any way.
Furthermore god did not write the bible thus it is the jewish people who are owned said payment. Of course the bible is simply a reiteration of already existing views and themes (most of the morals existed before it and many we no longer value anyway) so we'd need to go back even further. Since it is not only literature that is copyright able but any performed work even the ancient oral stories on which everything is based are subject to it.
So where would I put up my non-commercial forum, which is international almost by definition (any web-only entity is pretty much)? -com: nope that's for commercial entities -biz:nope, that's for businesses -org: Misc. organizations which again doesn't fit. -name: Well it's not a personal site so no. -net: nope, I'm not an ISP or similar -int: An international corporation, again nope. -edu,gov,mil: Nope once again. -info: Doesn't really fit. -aero,cat,coop,jobs,mobi,museum,tel,travel: Darn, doesn't fit the intended usage of any of these. -pro: If only I got that accounting accreditation.
Yes, if there are any intelligent beings out there in our galaxy who want to talk to other beings then they already have probes in the solar system (and likely sent some warm body this way a long time ago). After all even at sub light speeds all you need is a good AI and a self-replicating probe to cover the whole galaxy in under half a million years. Leave probes near the interesting systems and have them send back a message if they think intelligent life is imminent. Doesn't seem all that difficult a task for an advanced enough species, trivial even I'd say.
Granted by the time some other intelligent species evolved the alien's civilization would likely have long since been dead but if they actually wanted to meet other intelligent life they'd have used some means to live till then (AIs, uploaded minds, relativistic immortality, actual immortality by bio-engineering, etc.). I mean they'd need a good number of "first-contact" teams across the galaxy to respond to the automated "intelligent life imminent" signals but that doesn't seem unlikely either. After all just imagine how many humans would have jumped at the chance to be part of one if we did such a thing? At worst the aliens get to send whatever message and knowledge they wish to any new intelligent life forms even if none of them get to meet the new life.
Programming is math, and patenting math is meaningless and definitely does not help the progression of science.
What isn't math then? I can describe almost anything as a set of formulas, even complex machines are just self-computing "programs" made out of physical material.
Except it's unlikely that a 1000 people would all die, get tired or go insane at once. Likewise it is unlikely that all 1000 would be unavailable at a given point to fix a problem because they are asleep, on vacation, held hostage at gunpoint in a nightclub, fixing someone else's problem, etc. There is also a big difference between 10k people (Comcast), 20 people (web hosts I'd use) and 1 person. I am for the middle one myself.
It's not that something bad had happened, it's that it could happen and I've seen some "well recommended" one person operation go south so fast people only noticed it when the owner went poof with servers+data in hand.
Last I checked the soviet union collapsed somewhat over a decade ago and these accidents aren't trivial to hide. Given the number of near failures that are known about and the implausibility of hiding a full out failure (you know the CIA would notice that all 3 crew of the recently "returned" soviet craft no longer show up anywhere) yes the soviet/russian Soyuz craft has a better track record.
It's take insane amount of incompetence to make it otherwise, the capsule design is simply inherently safer compared to the shuttle (due to it's simpler design, better failure modes, fewer fragile bits, ease of upgrading, etc.). I think they had a rocket explode on the launch pad but the crew survived as the capsule simply ejected from the rocket right before it happened (try doing that with a shuttle). I'm not saying a reusable vehicle can't be safer but simply that current technology does not allow this.
The Soyuz lost only one crew, 30 years ago or so due to a bad valve. Their bodies came down intact but they died of decompression but they simply couldn't close a valve fast enough once they noticed a problem.
Now including a failure that happened 30+ years ago in a much older version of a vehicle to that of a much newer vehicle is beyond arsine. Since the time the shuttle started flying there have been 0 deaths on Soyuz craft. Even if we include it we see that:
There have been 96 Soyuz flights with 1 loss, assuming equal number of crew per flights thats a failure rate of ~1% in both craft and crew (per launch).
The shuttle has gone up 117 times with 2 losses, assuming an equal number of crew per launch that is a failure rate of ~2% in both craft and crew (per launch).
No, the people who designed the original version of the shuttle weren't idiots. The people who ok-ed the final version and forced the inane air force requirements onto it were idiots. There is no next iteration of the space shuttle, it took 30 years to realize that the original small people carrying ship is actually what is needed. Untold billions have been wasted in the Shuttle, every launch costs 5 times more than it should. In some ways we've wasted 30 years worth of time and effort on projects which if ever used again will need to be redone from scratch anyway. Large scale reusable vehicles given current technology and needs (few launches) are simply impractical in all sense of the word. They did try again with the Venture Star for some insane reason, they scrapped it when it became questionable if it could even reach orbit given the state of the technology.
The soviets and now Russians despite having an atrocious safety record (they had capsules reenter upside down, still attached to another piece, had rockets fail on launch, etc.) have a lower death rate with their space vehicles than we do, that's beyond sad.
Blueprints wouldn't do much good, things have changed so much and old parts no longer are produced that it'd take a massive effort to update to modern parts the spaceships. A lot of things simply aren't on blueprints that would matter in such a case. You don't care if part X is there, you care why part X was put there and if part Y can be used instead. More importantly you care about what effects part Y would have. Experience cannot be distilled into writing and NASA's experience in this area has retired or died.
NASA has very little experience now with capsules anymore or large rockets (likely less so than when Apollo was started). On the other hand they do have better tools than before. In the end it likely is faster and cheaper to make the whole thing from almost scratch but that would take many years. And no, I don't trust the same sort of people who ok-ed the space shuttle to make any design more advanced that Apollo in basic principle. The moon doesn't need any more craters.
No, we can't get there all that quickly. We can't use the old Apollo system as we have no heavy load rockets and the Shuttle can't lift the payload in one piece (it may not even be able to lift some of the pieces period). I doubt we could even recreate the Saturn V or even Apollo systems right now with less effort than building a new system from scratch. So you'd need a new rocket and a new lander, unless you want to shove some overcomplicated beast into 5+ shuttle loads.
The Russians probably have a better chance at pulling this off but they don't have the money.
I mean how else can you take that comment except that Bungie owned themselves. They essentially admitted that the best they could do as a response is to remake a 20 (?) year old game that's been remade more time than I could even count. I mean who in god's name responds to being called unoriginal by saying they will do something unoriginal.
I mean it's like watching some idiot try to debate online.
I can only assume that people found the standard to be lacking in features. So each DB added it's own things to increase the feature count, etc. Of course they all did it independently so you get a lovely mess where each database may do X but the syntax is different for each.
You seem to just live in a really bad area. I don't remember being in any place in NYC where there aren't 3 grocery stores, 3 pharmacies, 2 coffee shops and 15 restaurants in the area.
Public transportation does cost more but then again you don't need to own a car period. In say the Bay Area you may be able to take public transportation combined with some company shuttle to work most days if you live/work in the right area but beyond that it's a lottery. God help if you you need to go anywhere from work at 2 pm in under 1.5 to 2 hours without a car (for comparison a car does the same trip in under 20 minutes and it's 40 minutes to an hour during rush hour using public/company transportation).
That is the way it has worked in the past- because the police have been allowed to be anonymous. Not really, you can easily get any information you want on the police arresting you. It simply wont do any good.
I have no problem with a tyranny of the majority- I have a problem with nonconformists and those who would be anonymous to hurt their fellow citizens. So it is okay for the majority to hurt their fellow citizens? One need not be anonymous to do great harm, after all everyone knew who Stalin and Mao were and yet they committed the worst genocides in known history.
That kind of police state is only possible if the leaders in a society can hide- and I want *NOBODY* to be able to hide. That is impossible, as I said such a system is inherently unstable as those in power will find a way to hide. After all, national security requires a lot of information and actions to be hidden for the good of the nation. In the end there is no one to watch the watchman as humans and their constructs are inherently flawed. As a result democracy and a police state are incompatible except in some magical land. It's the same problem as communism, it requires people to not abuse the hell out of a system which we inherently do. Likewise you seem to think that such a system is optimal, yet it is unlikely to be so (no system is) and since you cannot allow change you force stagnation in an inferior system.
Well, by that argument I should be in Gitmo already- yet I'm not. The jews (and other minorities) in germany said the same thing in the 30s, soviets as well before (and during) stalin's reign, polish people said something similar before the warsaw uprising (the soviets sent the fighters to siberia once they got hold of poland), the french revolutionaries did likewise before meeting the same guillotine they used on their own adversaries not soon before, and so on.
I never said you should be there, I'm saying it is a likely possibility if what you want comes to pass.
I've made no secret about wanting to live in a police state- as long as it's a democratic one in ALL ways, especially in resource allocation. Democracy and a police state are mutually exclusive in anything but the shortest term. The people in power quickly realize that they can stay in power even longer by getting rid of a democratic process. A police state and the social climate required for one gives them enough power to do so with a good chance of succeeding (anyone who tries to fight them is quickly rounded up). In turn the resulting dictatorship is likely run by utter self serving nitwits resulting is massive social problems. No method is left for fighting against the dictatorship as the police state in being formed has removed all such methods. Also true democracy allows for tyranny of the majority.
Oregon back in the days of my big hero, Tom McCall, would have closed it's borders. There's no danger of foreign attack if the foreigners can't get to you- and that includes the Californicators. Foreigners are the only reason the US has a decent economy and a decent higher education system nowadays.
Because he'll only do it ONCE- I'll make sure the consequences of doing so are bad enough to keep him from ever cheating anybody ever again. What consequences do you want? Want him executed?
As if we're able to rebel NOW. Why not, exactly save for there being no reason to? Please do enlighten me. I mean you seem to be scared shitless of a few dozen terrorist yet claim that a hundred thousand people (including many members of the armed forces) couldn't do anything at all? The US revolution had a 30% support rate I believe and an equal number who were indifferent.
Depends upon how you look at the threat. Al Qaeda's real strength is in a rather novel new concept- individualized warfare, where anybody can declare war on anybody even without an army to back them up. Novel? Please go read a history book and look up every uprising and revolution in there. It's only novel if you're the typical sort of American idiot who can't tell where Europe is on a map even if its labeled.
Consider this- those who do not have a REAL ID will find it much harder to buy and sell; thus cutting off Al Qaeda's supply line. Black markets exist in the US or do you think all those inner city gangs legally bought their weapons?
Domestic terrorists who are already here will find their transactions recorded and much easieer to trace by the police- also saving time and trouble. So would your transactions where you bought those pro-socialist books which suddenly leads you into a jail cell in South America in 10 years when the government decides socialism is truly evil. Or if you look up some anti-current-administration material and by pure chance match some pattern in a government system then find yourself in a jail on an island with no rights to a trial. We got damn close to it already with Nixon so it's not far from reality.
Also data mining royally sucks at this due to the very small amount of data on terrorists and their patterns. So claiming this will stop terrorism is beyond laughable. Just come right out and say you want to live in a police state and stop hiding behind the evil terrorists.
But best of all would be if the States were just given the right to actually police themselves better- but oh no, we can't do that, the interstate commerce clause prevents it. What does that have to do with anything, how would the states police themselves? Well?
All the more reason why anonymity is a danger- it's dangerous to do business with people you don't know and can't trust. In fact, it's stupid to do so. You can never trust anyone.
If you can't hit a man in the nose when he cheats you, how do you know he's not going to cheat you? How do you know he won't cheat you even if you do know who he is?
What you're really arguing for is the right to commit fraud against your neighbors. And that is wrong, why? For comparison you're arguing for 1984^2, no other system truly prevents crime or fraud. Actually you'd need to have neural implants so the state can read your thoughts to prevent you from even considering "bad thoughts" for fear that you may act on them. Likewise any attempt to act of them would trigger a mechanism that disables you in case the other safety measures fail. The people in charge will of course be exempt from such measures as they would not be able to properly govern with them in place. Granted you don't need to worry, your upbringing in modern society almost guarantees that the new overlords will either kill you right off the bat or lobotomize you (not literally of course, I doubt they'd cut the same part of the brain out as was done in lobotomies) as we're all way too contaminated to fit into such a society properly.
I of course reserve the right to cheap, kill or rebel if I see that as necessary. History has taught me that societies do not last and that power corrupts, revolutions are inevitable and good in the long scheme of things. A lack of them would lead to stagnation , social decay, widespread unhappiness (likely a perpetual regime of happy drugs would keep that in check) and the eventual extinction of humanity by our own hands or those of nature (sooner or later something bad will happen and social decay means we won't be able to stop it).
The founding fathers were criminals with respect to the British government. They as a result tried to make a system which neither trusts the government (too easily corrupted) or the people (too easily swayed) fully.
The Founding Fathers were living in a country that had never been attacked with weapons of mass destruction. Neither has the US ever been attacked by such weapons, unless you count every single explosive as a WMD since if properly placed it could kill thousands. Hell my fist could likely kill thousands at once in some situations, say if I took out the support of a rickety platform on which they were standing.
I think we can be relatively safe in utterly denying them any voice in 21st century security discussions. Their views are now more relevant than ever since technology has magnified the potential of what they feared a hundred fold.
Anonymity is just the right to take away rights from your neighbors. And lack of it is the right of the government to take away the rights of those that disagree with it.
Because the genetics employers screen for will be those that produce results that interfere with the duties of the job or jobs in general. There is at best a 50/50 split between genetic and environment for pure intelligence, it's likely much less once you add in all the characteristics for a job. Genetics will tell you very little about a job applicant, likely leading to those who are qualified but have technically "inferior" genes not getting a job despite being better candidates.
Just consider the potential, with the genetic testing of tomorrow we might be able to screen out George Bush as a presidential candidate. And we could have screened Stephen Hawking from ever getting into college, after all what could such a soon to be cripple ever contribute to society.
Depends althrough you're likely correct for minor addition, my mistake. Anything larger than that could be argued against at least in terms of any protection that the additions get.
The author is the only one who can make derivative works but that does not mean that a derivative work is itself automatically copyrighted under such a scheme, after all the additions are a separate work.
and you actually have to file for a copyright and put copyright notices on the work. That is of course a horrid system, just imagine if every time you added a new fix to your GPL program you had to pay a $20 fee and file paperwork. Of course large companies would have of course loved this as they'd have even less competition as a result.
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of books/authors have moral/ethical themes that have influences western society and thus western writing:
-The Republic
-Books by John Locke
-Karl Marx
-John Stuart Mill
-Adam Smith
-Immanuel Kant
-Niccolò Machiavelli
-George Orwell
Since cultures are melding modern western writing is also influenced by all the various religions and writing from other cultures. Buddhism is a good example and one not based on the bible in any way.
Furthermore god did not write the bible thus it is the jewish people who are owned said payment. Of course the bible is simply a reiteration of already existing views and themes (most of the morals existed before it and many we no longer value anyway) so we'd need to go back even further. Since it is not only literature that is copyright able but any performed work even the ancient oral stories on which everything is based are subject to it.
So where would I put up my non-commercial forum, which is international almost by definition (any web-only entity is pretty much)?
-com: nope that's for commercial entities
-biz:nope, that's for businesses
-org: Misc. organizations which again doesn't fit.
-name: Well it's not a personal site so no.
-net: nope, I'm not an ISP or similar
-int: An international corporation, again nope.
-edu,gov,mil: Nope once again.
-info: Doesn't really fit.
-aero,cat,coop,jobs,mobi,museum,tel,travel: Darn, doesn't fit the intended usage of any of these.
-pro: If only I got that accounting accreditation.
Yes, if there are any intelligent beings out there in our galaxy who want to talk to other beings then they already have probes in the solar system (and likely sent some warm body this way a long time ago). After all even at sub light speeds all you need is a good AI and a self-replicating probe to cover the whole galaxy in under half a million years. Leave probes near the interesting systems and have them send back a message if they think intelligent life is imminent. Doesn't seem all that difficult a task for an advanced enough species, trivial even I'd say.
Granted by the time some other intelligent species evolved the alien's civilization would likely have long since been dead but if they actually wanted to meet other intelligent life they'd have used some means to live till then (AIs, uploaded minds, relativistic immortality, actual immortality by bio-engineering, etc.). I mean they'd need a good number of "first-contact" teams across the galaxy to respond to the automated "intelligent life imminent" signals but that doesn't seem unlikely either. After all just imagine how many humans would have jumped at the chance to be part of one if we did such a thing? At worst the aliens get to send whatever message and knowledge they wish to any new intelligent life forms even if none of them get to meet the new life.
Programming is math, and patenting math is meaningless and definitely does not help the progression of science.
What isn't math then? I can describe almost anything as a set of formulas, even complex machines are just self-computing "programs" made out of physical material.
Except it's unlikely that a 1000 people would all die, get tired or go insane at once. Likewise it is unlikely that all 1000 would be unavailable at a given point to fix a problem because they are asleep, on vacation, held hostage at gunpoint in a nightclub, fixing someone else's problem, etc. There is also a big difference between 10k people (Comcast), 20 people (web hosts I'd use) and 1 person. I am for the middle one myself.
It's not that something bad had happened, it's that it could happen and I've seen some "well recommended" one person operation go south so fast people only noticed it when the owner went poof with servers+data in hand.
Last I checked the soviet union collapsed somewhat over a decade ago and these accidents aren't trivial to hide. Given the number of near failures that are known about and the implausibility of hiding a full out failure (you know the CIA would notice that all 3 crew of the recently "returned" soviet craft no longer show up anywhere) yes the soviet/russian Soyuz craft has a better track record.
It's take insane amount of incompetence to make it otherwise, the capsule design is simply inherently safer compared to the shuttle (due to it's simpler design, better failure modes, fewer fragile bits, ease of upgrading, etc.). I think they had a rocket explode on the launch pad but the crew survived as the capsule simply ejected from the rocket right before it happened (try doing that with a shuttle). I'm not saying a reusable vehicle can't be safer but simply that current technology does not allow this.
The Soyuz lost only one crew, 30 years ago or so due to a bad valve. Their bodies came down intact but they died of decompression but they simply couldn't close a valve fast enough once they noticed a problem.
Now including a failure that happened 30+ years ago in a much older version of a vehicle to that of a much newer vehicle is beyond arsine. Since the time the shuttle started flying there have been 0 deaths on Soyuz craft. Even if we include it we see that:
There have been 96 Soyuz flights with 1 loss, assuming equal number of crew per flights thats a failure rate of ~1% in both craft and crew (per launch).
The shuttle has gone up 117 times with 2 losses, assuming an equal number of crew per launch that is a failure rate of ~2% in both craft and crew (per launch).
No, the people who designed the original version of the shuttle weren't idiots. The people who ok-ed the final version and forced the inane air force requirements onto it were idiots. There is no next iteration of the space shuttle, it took 30 years to realize that the original small people carrying ship is actually what is needed. Untold billions have been wasted in the Shuttle, every launch costs 5 times more than it should. In some ways we've wasted 30 years worth of time and effort on projects which if ever used again will need to be redone from scratch anyway. Large scale reusable vehicles given current technology and needs (few launches) are simply impractical in all sense of the word. They did try again with the Venture Star for some insane reason, they scrapped it when it became questionable if it could even reach orbit given the state of the technology.
The soviets and now Russians despite having an atrocious safety record (they had capsules reenter upside down, still attached to another piece, had rockets fail on launch, etc.) have a lower death rate with their space vehicles than we do, that's beyond sad.
Blueprints wouldn't do much good, things have changed so much and old parts no longer are produced that it'd take a massive effort to update to modern parts the spaceships. A lot of things simply aren't on blueprints that would matter in such a case. You don't care if part X is there, you care why part X was put there and if part Y can be used instead. More importantly you care about what effects part Y would have. Experience cannot be distilled into writing and NASA's experience in this area has retired or died.
NASA has very little experience now with capsules anymore or large rockets (likely less so than when Apollo was started). On the other hand they do have better tools than before. In the end it likely is faster and cheaper to make the whole thing from almost scratch but that would take many years. And no, I don't trust the same sort of people who ok-ed the space shuttle to make any design more advanced that Apollo in basic principle. The moon doesn't need any more craters.
No, we can't get there all that quickly. We can't use the old Apollo system as we have no heavy load rockets and the Shuttle can't lift the payload in one piece (it may not even be able to lift some of the pieces period). I doubt we could even recreate the Saturn V or even Apollo systems right now with less effort than building a new system from scratch. So you'd need a new rocket and a new lander, unless you want to shove some overcomplicated beast into 5+ shuttle loads.
The Russians probably have a better chance at pulling this off but they don't have the money.
I mean how else can you take that comment except that Bungie owned themselves. They essentially admitted that the best they could do as a response is to remake a 20 (?) year old game that's been remade more time than I could even count. I mean who in god's name responds to being called unoriginal by saying they will do something unoriginal.
I mean it's like watching some idiot try to debate online.
I can only assume that people found the standard to be lacking in features. So each DB added it's own things to increase the feature count, etc. Of course they all did it independently so you get a lovely mess where each database may do X but the syntax is different for each.
You seem to just live in a really bad area. I don't remember being in any place in NYC where there aren't 3 grocery stores, 3 pharmacies, 2 coffee shops and 15 restaurants in the area.
Public transportation does cost more but then again you don't need to own a car period. In say the Bay Area you may be able to take public transportation combined with some company shuttle to work most days if you live/work in the right area but beyond that it's a lottery. God help if you you need to go anywhere from work at 2 pm in under 1.5 to 2 hours without a car (for comparison a car does the same trip in under 20 minutes and it's 40 minutes to an hour during rush hour using public/company transportation).
I never said you should be there, I'm saying it is a likely possibility if what you want comes to pass. I've made no secret about wanting to live in a police state- as long as it's a democratic one in ALL ways, especially in resource allocation. Democracy and a police state are mutually exclusive in anything but the shortest term. The people in power quickly realize that they can stay in power even longer by getting rid of a democratic process. A police state and the social climate required for one gives them enough power to do so with a good chance of succeeding (anyone who tries to fight them is quickly rounded up). In turn the resulting dictatorship is likely run by utter self serving nitwits resulting is massive social problems. No method is left for fighting against the dictatorship as the police state in being formed has removed all such methods. Also true democracy allows for tyranny of the majority. Oregon back in the days of my big hero, Tom McCall, would have closed it's borders. There's no danger of foreign attack if the foreigners can't get to you- and that includes the Californicators. Foreigners are the only reason the US has a decent economy and a decent higher education system nowadays.
Also data mining royally sucks at this due to the very small amount of data on terrorists and their patterns. So claiming this will stop terrorism is beyond laughable. Just come right out and say you want to live in a police state and stop hiding behind the evil terrorists. But best of all would be if the States were just given the right to actually police themselves better- but oh no, we can't do that, the interstate commerce clause prevents it. What does that have to do with anything, how would the states police themselves? Well?
I of course reserve the right to cheap, kill or rebel if I see that as necessary. History has taught me that societies do not last and that power corrupts, revolutions are inevitable and good in the long scheme of things. A lack of them would lead to stagnation , social decay, widespread unhappiness (likely a perpetual regime of happy drugs would keep that in check) and the eventual extinction of humanity by our own hands or those of nature (sooner or later something bad will happen and social decay means we won't be able to stop it).
Whatever game can teach me to:
1) Survive
2) Build a raft
3) Not die horribly in the middle of the ocean
Depends althrough you're likely correct for minor addition, my mistake. Anything larger than that could be argued against at least in terms of any protection that the additions get.
t icle.html
http://www.oblon.com/Pub/HudisSullivanCopyrightAr
The author is the only one who can make derivative works but that does not mean that a derivative work is itself automatically copyrighted under such a scheme, after all the additions are a separate work.